New from Cambridge University Press!

Sociolinguistics from the Periphery "presents a fascinating book about change: shifting political, economic and cultural conditions; ephemeral, sometimes even seasonal, multilingualism; and altered imaginaries for minority and indigenous languages and their users."

Summary Details

SOME WEEKS AGO I POSTED THE FOLLOWING QUERY ABOUT AN UNUSUAL SPANISHCONSTRUCTION:

>I HAVE JUST COME ACROSS A CONSTRUCTION IN SPANISH WHICH I HAD NEVER SEEN>BEFORE. THE VERY WELL READ NATIVE SPEAKER WHO GAVE IT TO ME ASSURES ME IT>IS UNUSUAL BUT CORRECT. IT IS:>>''SE LE HABIAMOS OLVIDADO'', IN THE SENSE OF ''(ELLA) SE HABIA OLVIDADO DE>NOSOTROS''.>>AS A FLUENT, NON-NATIVE SPEAKER OF SPANISH, I IMMEDIATELY JUDGED THIS TO BE>UNGRAMMATICAL, BUT MY INFORMANT INSISTS IT IS ACCEPTABLE, THOUGH VERY>UNUSUAL. I SHOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE OPINION OF OTHER NATIVE SPEAKERS ON THE>LINGUIST LIST. IF YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE, PLEASE SUGGEST HOW IT SHOULD BE>ANALYSED, E.G. WHETHER THE VERB IS 1ST PERSON PLURAL OR 3RD PERSON SINGULAR>+ A SUFFIXED PRONOUN ''-MOS''.>>I WILL POST A SUMMARY IF THE RESULTS ARE WORTHWHILE.

THOSE WHO FIND THE SENTENCE ACCEPTABLE DO SO BY ANALOGY WITH CONSTRUCTIONSSUCH AS ''SE LE HABIAN OLVIDADO LAS LLAVES'', WHERE THE SUBJECT IS ''LLAVES''AND ''LE'' IS AN INDIRECT OBJECT. HERE'S A PARTIAL CONJUGATION SUGGESTED BYFLORENCIA FRANCESCHINA:

I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WOULD DOUBT THE WELL-FORMEDNESS OF A) AND B), BUTTHEY BOTH HAVE 3RD PERSON SUBJECTS, WHICH AGREE WITH ''SE'', (IF WE TAKE ''SE''TO BE A REFLEXIVE DIRECT OBJECT), WHEREAS C) IS 1ST PERSON PLURAL. TO KEEPTHE ANALOGY STRICT, C) WOULD PRESUMABLY HAVE TO BE ''NOS LE HABÍAMOS OLVIDADONOSOTROS'', BUT THIS SOUNDS PRETTY ODD TOO!

PERHAPS THE ''SE'' IS NOT A REFLEXIVE PARTICLE IN THIS CASE, BUT SOMETHINGELSE, AND CAN OCCUR IN A SENTENCE WITH A 1ST PERSON PLURAL VERB FORM. IFTHAT IS THE CASE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND OTHER EXAMPLES. TWO RESPONDENTSSEARCHED FOR OTHER OCCURENCES OF ''SE LE HABIAMOS...'' AND COULD FIND NOTHING.BUT I WOULD STILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM ANYBODY WHO CAN OFFERFURTHER EXAMPLES.

DR MENDIVIL ALSO OFFERS SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS ON THE SEMANTICIMPLICATIONS OF SENTENCES USING ''OLVIDARSE/OLVIDARSE DE'' AND RELATED VERBS,WHICH I COPY BELOW.

THE ONLY NORMAL SITUATION WHERE ''SE'' DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE GRAMMATICALSUBJECT IS WHEN IT IS AN INDIRECT OBJECT AND NOT A REFLEXIVE PRONOUN, BUTIT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THAT COULD APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THEREIS ALREADY AN INDIRECT OBJECT, ''LE''. DANILO VILICIC SAYS:

''... THE PRONOUN ''SE'' ,I THINK IS TAKEN FROM CONSTRUCTIONS LIKE:SE LODIJE,ETC.BUT ANYWAYSYOU WILL ALWAYS HEAR :''SE LO'',NEVER ''SE LE''.IT'S A DOUBLE DATIVE!!!! AND THEPRONOUN SE IN ''SE LO'' COMES FROM OLD SPANISH LLELO>GELO>SE LO(LATIN:ILLIILLUM),AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN ''SE''.''

MY OWN CONCLUSION, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, IS THAT NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TOJUSTIFY BY ANALYSIS A SENTENCE WHICH ONLY A VERY SMALL NUMBERS OF NATIVESPEAKERS ACCEPT AS WELL-FORMED, AND WHICH ONLY ONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE CLAIMSEVER TO HAVE HEARD BEFORE (MY ORIGINAL INFORMANT). IT MAY THEREFORE BE THATTHESE SPEAKERS ARE USING SOME SORT OF SUBCONSCIOUS ANALOGY WHICH WE HAVE NOTYET BROUGHT TO LIGHT. IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT ANYBODY USING THIS CONSTRUCTIONWILL GENERALLY BE JUDGED TO BE MAKING A ''LAPSUS LINGUAE''.

I GIVE BELOW THE FULL TEXT OF ALL THE REPLIES, INCLUDING SOME INTERESTINGCOMMENTS FROM JOSÉ-LUIS MENDIVIL ON THE SEMANTIC IMPLICATIONS OF SENTENCESUSING ''OLVIDARSE/OLVIDARSE DE'' AND RELATED VERBS. I SHOULD BE DELIGHTED TORECEIVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS CONSTRUCTION OR ON UNUSUAL USES OF ''SE''IN GENERAL.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, SOMETHING (UNRELATED?) FROM ENGLISH THAT WAS TRIGGEREDIN MY MIND WHEN I READ YOUR POST: THE EXPRESSION ''THIS CABIN SLEEPS 5''STRUCK ME, THE FIRST TIME I HEARD IT, AS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE ANDPERFECTLY UNGRAMMATICAL. :-) I WONDER WHETHER WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED THESTAGE WHERE NATIVE SPEAKERS NO LONGER CRINGE AT HEARING THIS PHRASE. NOTMUCH HELP AS REGARDS YOUR QUERY, BUT I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT FIND ITINTERESTING EVERTHELESS.

AS A NATIVE SPANISH SPEAKER, I NEVER HEARD THAT IN MY LIFE, EITHER. BUTIMHO THERE IS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT (''ELLA/EL'', 3RD. PERSONSINGULAR) AND VERB (''HABÍAMOS'', 1ST. PERSON PLURAL), SO THE SENTENCE SEEMSUNGRAMMATICAL. THE EASY AND ALTERNATIVE WAY OF SAYING ''ELLA SE HABÍAOLVIDADO DE NOSOTROS'' WOULD BE ''NOS HABÍA OLVIDADO''. STRETCHING THINGS ABIT, THE SENTENCE UNDER ANALYSIS COULD BE WRITTEN AS: ''SE LE HABÍA OLVIDADOACORDARSE DE NOSOTROS'' OR ''SE LE HABÍA OLVIDADO RECORDARNOS'' (SHE HADFORGOTTEN TO REMEMBER US)... ALWAYS SUBJECT AND VERB IN AGREEMENT.

COLIN,I DON'T THINK ''SE LE HABÍAMOS OLVIDADO'' IS CORRECT. THERE IS A SONG I KNOWWITH THE TITLE ''TE ME OLVIDAS''. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FIRST PRONOUN IS AREFLEXIVE THAT HAS TO AGREE WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE VERB... SO, IFANYTHING,IT WOULD BE ''NOS LE HABÍAMOS OLVIDADO'', BUT I CONFESS THAT THAT SOUNDS VERYBIZARRE TO MY NATIVE-SPANISH EARS, ALTHOUGH IT IS PROBABLY GRAMMATICALLYCORRECT.RENÉ

_________________________________

HI,

I'M NOT A NATIVE SPEAKER OF SPANISH, BUT NEAR-NATIVE, AND IT SEEMS TO METHAT THIS CONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE BY ANALOGY TO CONSTRUCTIONS ''SE LE CAYOLA TAZA'', ''SE LE ROMPIERON LOS CRISTALES'' ETC. WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THEUNEXPECTED ''SE''. FOR ME, THE VERB IN YOUR CONSTRUCTION IS THE 1ST PERSONPLURAL, BUT I'M NOT A SYNTACTITION. I'M SURE NATIVE SPEAKER WILL TELL YOUMORE.

AT 09:04 A.M. 06/11/00 +0100, YOU WROTE:>BERNIEH,>>THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT. THE STATISTICS CERTAINLY CONFIRM THAT THIS>IS A HIGHLY UNUSUAL CONSTRUCTION, TO SAY THE LEAST. I AGREE WITH ALL OFYOUR>ANALYSIS; THE TROUBLE IS THAT THREE NATIVES HAVE NOW CONFIRMED THISSENTENCE>TO ME HERE IN SPAIN, SO THE PLOT THICKENS.>

LET'S ACCEPT THAT THE SENTENCE IS GRAMMATICAL, BUT REWRITE THE IMPLICITSUBJECT AND INDIRECT OBJECT AS:

BY DOING THIS, WE ARE VERY NEAR OF THE ORIGINAL MEANING ''ELLA SE HABÍAOLVIDADO DE NOSOTROS'' AND SUBJECT (NOSOTROS) AND VERB AGREE. IF THIS ISRIGHT, THEN THE REAL MESSAGE CONVEYED IN THE SENTENCE IS ''WE HAD BEENFORGOTTEN BY HER''); THE FOCUS IS ON ''US'', NOT ON ''HER''... ''(NOSOTROS)HABÍAMOS SIDO OLVIDADOS (POR ELLA)... ''SE HABÍA OLVIDADO ELLA DENOSOTROS''... ''SE LE HABÍAMOS OLVIDADO'' (.... EVEN ''HABÍAMOSELEOLVIDADO''??!!)

INTERESTING AND UNUSUAL... I'LL TRY TO FIND MORE ON THIS.

REGARDS, BERNIEH.

P.D.: NOTE THAT THE ABOVE DOES NOT WORK WITH OTHER VERBS, LETS SAY''BURLAR''. WE CANNOT DERIVE ''HABÍAMOS SIDO BURLADOS POR ELLA''... ''SE HABÍABURLADO ELLA DE NOSOTROS''... ''SE LE HABÍAMOS BURLADO''... THAT IS, UNLESSYOUR FRIENDS FROM BARCELONA SAY SO :-)

NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT : (A) THE SUBJECT OF (2A)-TYPE CONSTRUCTIONS ISNECESSARILY A 3RD PERSON (SO THAT YOUR SPANISH EXAMPLE, WITHNOSOTROS, WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IN PORT.) ; (B) THE ORDER IS ALWAYS VSIN (2A) WHERAS BOTH VS AND SV ARE ALLOWED IN (1)-LIKE SENTENCES ;OTHERWISE (''AS LARANJAS ESQUECERAM-ME''), THE MEANING WOULD BE ABSURD(''THE ORANGES FORGOT ME'').I'M MAINLY A PHONOLOGIST. NO IDEA ON HOW THOSE THINGS ARE TO BEANALYZED. BUT COULD IT BE THE CASE THAT SPANISH HAS ONLY OPERATED AGENERALISATION FROM THE 3RD (AND UNMARKED) PERSON TO THE WHOLEPERSONAL PARADIGM?

WHILE NOT A NATIVE SPANISH SPEAKER, BUT ALSO A FLUENT NON-NATIVE, I HAVENOT COME ACROSS THIS CONSTRUCTION WITH THE FIRST PERSON PLURAL, BUT ITSHOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH OF A SURPRISE SINCE I HAVE SEEN IT WIITH OTHER FORMSOF THE VERB. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE ''SE LE PERDIERON LAS LLAVES'' WHERE THEMEANING IS ''ELLA PERDIÓ LAS LLAVES''. I THINK IT JUST REMOVES THE ACTIVESUBJECT (ELLA) FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HAVING LOST THE KEYS (OR IN YOUREXAMPLE, FROM HAVING FORGOTTEN ABOUT US) AND JUST MAKES HIM/HER THE ONE TOWHOM THE ACTION HAS HAPPENED, A MUCH MORE PASSIVE, AND PERHAPS INNOCENT,ROLE. IT COULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ENGLISH BETWEEN ''MYKEYS GOT LOST'' OR ''MY KEYS DISAPPEARED'' AND ''I LOST MY KEYS''. IT DOES SEEMA BIT MORE UNUSUAL WITH THE FIRST PERSON PLURAL, THOUGH, BUT PERHAPS NOTIMPOSSIBLE.

(AS TO WHAT THE SUBJECT IS, YOU ARE THINKING OF SOME OTHER LANGUAGE,PERHAPS ENGLISH. THIS IS LIKE SAYING THAT ''NO ME GUSTARON ESAS PELICULAS''IS FIRST PERSON BECAUSE THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION HAS I AS SUBJECT.)

NOT A NATIVE SPEAKER, BUT A FAIRLY GOOD ANALYST AS WELL AS USER.USUALLY, THOUGH, THE CONSTRUCTION MEANS THAT SUBJECT SLIPPED OUT OF THEMIND OF INDIRECT OBJECT. AS THOUGH YOUR SENTENCE MIGHT MEAN THAT WE(S)HE/YOU (USTED) LEFT US BEHIND, RATHER THAN (S)HE/YOU DIDN'T RECOGNIZEUS.KARL

JUST A BRIEF NOTE ON ''SE LE HABIAMOS OLVIDADO'': THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIONMUST BE RARE, IF INDEED IT HAS MORE THAN A PEDANTIC / THEORETICAL EXISTENCE.IN A QUICK SEARCH ON ALTAVVISTA, WHICH INDEXES 7-8 MILLION WEB PAGES, ICOULD FIND NO EXAMPLES OF''SE LE(S) HEMOS | HABIAMOS'', AND ONLY 34 OF ''SE LE(S) HE...'', NONE OF WHICHWERE COMPARABLE TO YOUR EXAMPLE. YET EVEN IN SUCH A LARGE CORPUS NOT ALLPOSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS ARE NECESSARILY FOUND.

INTERESTING QUESTION. I THOUGHT IT WAS CLEARLY UNGRAMMATICAL WHEN I FIRSTREAD IT, BUT THEN I STARTED TO ANALYZE IT AND DECIDED IT MAKES SENSE. LET METHINK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT AND I'LL GIVE YOU MY FINAL ANSWER. MY WIFE,ALSO A NATIVE SPEAKER OF SPANISH, SAYS IT IS NOT GRAMMATICAL. MY GUT FEELINGRIGHT NOW (WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN IT TOO MUCH THOUGHT ) IS THAT THIS KIND OFSTRUCTURE IS HIGHLY INTRANSITIVE IN THE SENSE THAT IT REQUIRES A GRAMMATICALSUBJECT THAT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE AT ALL IN THE ACTION PREDICATED BY THEVERB, BUT IN THIS CASE THE SUBJECT IS THE FIRST PERSON PLURAL NOSOTROS. WHATMAKES THE SENTECE ANOMALOUS IS THE COMBINATION OF THE FIRST PERSON, WHICHUSUALLY IMPLIES A HIGH DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION, WITH THIS STRUCTURE THATREQUIRES AN ALMOST PASSIVE (I.E. INACTIVE) SUBJECT.BY THE WAY, THE ENDING -MOS IS DEFINITELY NOT A PRONOUN AS YOU SUGGESTED,MAYBE BY MISTAKE. I AM SURE YOU WERE THINKING OF -NOS, BECAUSE -MOS CANNEVER BE A CLITIC PRONOUN (OR ANY KIND OF PRONOUN IN SPANISH).HOPE IT HELPS,

''SE LE HABIAMOS OLVIDADO'' IS UNNACCEPTABLE,AND GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT.I'M A NATIVE SPEAKER,AND I NEEDED YOUR EXPLANATION TO UNDERSTAND IT!IT'S GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE THE VERB POINTS TO ''HER''(OR ANY 3RDPERSON SINGULAR) NOT TO ''US''.''LE HABIAMOS OLVIDADO'':WE FORGOT TO HER,AND THEPRONOUN''SE'' ,I THINK IS TAKEN FROM CONSTRUCTIONS LIKE:SE LO DIJE,ETC.BUT ANYWAYSYOU WILL ALWAYS HEAR :''SE LO'',NEVER ''SE LE''.IT'S A DOUBLE DATIVE!!!!AND THE PRONOUN SE IN ''SE LO'' COMES FROM OLD SPANISH LLELO>GELO>SELO(LATIN:ILLI ILLUM),AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN''SE''.